According to an article, there is one family which has
a father, mother and a son. However, unfortunately the husband
passed away during an accident. The husband and wife
had a joint account amount to RM50,000 in a local bank.
The wife thought that she will get the money automatically
when the husband passed away.However, to her astonishment,
she could not even withdraw a single cent from the account.

For your information, a joint account holder will be able
to get the money automatically when that bank practise
"Joint Tenancy". This term tell us that when one party die,
the other party will get the money automatically.
Sad to say that, not all banks adopt this practice.

There is one lawyer that argues that there is this term
which is joint tenancy versus tenancy in common. This term
appears in the English and Common Civil Law. He argued that
even Malaysia's bank or lawyers are not able to tell you what
exactly is Joint Tenancy and Tenancy in common.

Business Law Case Study Question

There is a case law which found on the web regarding on the
law of binding contract.
It was on 9 February 2010, James received a written offer
from Bond for the purchase of James's antique car for the
sum of RM55,000. The letter stated that if Bond did not give
a reply within this two weeks James will made an assumption that
Bond had accepted that offer. However, Bond did no reply on this.
Therefore, James claim that there is a binding contract between
him and Bond.

However, i personally think that there is no binding contract in
this issue. Silence never represent acceptance. Other than that
to make a binding contract to be lawful, there are six elements to
be considered. The elements are :
1) Offer
2) Acceptance
3) Mutual Agreement
4) Capacity
5) Consideration
6) Legality

Therefore , i think there is no binding contract developed
between them in this issue.

Question of the day


I found a question on the internet which voice out the cases like this:

If a subsidiary company increase its authorized and paid up share capital
without knowledge of holding company just to dilute the
shareholding percentage. Kindly inform what are the precautions
in legal terms to be taken by a Holding Company to Control
the increase or decrease the Paid up as well as Authorized Share
Capital in its Subsidiary Companies.

According to the law of company, the authorised capital of the
company can be increased at the EGM of the shareholders by
passing a ordinary as well as special resolution. At this kind of
situation, the authorised capital can not be increased by t
he subsidiary company on its own or without the consent of
the holding company. On the other hand, in the case of
increase of paid up capital by the subisidiary company
within the limit of authorised capital, precaution such
as by having control over the composition of board of
directors of the subsidiary company can be taken by
the holding company.

Revenue/ Income tax law

Sources of income which is subject to income tax are as follow:

• Gains and profits from trade, profession and business
• Salaries, remunerations, gains and profits from an employment
• Dividends, interests or discounts
• Rents, royalties or premiums
• Pensions, annuities or other periodic payments/li>
• Other gains or profits of an income nature not mentioned above.

in an example:
Harlina operates a petrol station in Greenlane, Penang,
under the dealership operated by Petronas. under
the dealership agreement with Petronas, the principal
agreed to reimburse Harlina in respect of sums expended
by heron sales promotion, advertising, etc, in return for Harlina
agreeing to buy for resale only the company's brand
of petrol. During the year 2007, a reimbursement
of RM50,000 was receivable from Petronas in respect
to a lucky draw organizedby the petrol station.

Issue: Advise Harlina on whether the reimbursement of RM50,000 payable
by Petronas is taxable.

Discussion : It is taxable. Such a receipt is in essence a recovery of advertising and
promotion expenses which are deductible business expenses.

Geena case


Geena runs an unregistered online investment portal, where she
managed to get people to deposit their money to the account.
Later, it was discovered that all these are a scam and she planned
to flee with the money, only to be arrested by the immigration
officers due to her fake passport.

-Geena is liable under Civil law. As this is an intentional deception
made for personal benefits and to damage the other parties.

-Geena has violate the forgery laws , counterfeiting fraud. It is the process
of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with
the intention to deceive. A person commited a forgery crime when he/ she

• alter any writings of a person
• utter any writings which he/she knows to be forged.

- Geena has conducted the unlicensed activity as the online investment portal
is unregistered.
- Geena has also engaged herself in the investment fraud as she intends to
flee with the money when the people discovered that it was a scam.

Ryan case

When driving his car in Georgetown, Ryan called and talked with his
wife though his mobile phone without the use of hands-free device.
While talking, he lost control over his car and eventually hit a walking
pedestrian.

- Ryan is liable under criminal law. This is because he has violated the
rules of driving. It is an offends against the state.

- The pedestrian should pursue this matter to the criminal courts in order
to recover his losses and injuries. When the matter is brought to the criminal
court , an accused may be convicted if he is guilty and acquitted if he is
innocent. By the time when the accused is convicted, he will be fined or
go through the imprisonment, or both. The pedestrian can sue the drivers
for the medical expenses and the pain and sufferings caused by the reckless
driver.

The pros and cons of Doctrine of Stare Decisis

Supporters of the system argue that it makes decisions "predictable", that is, a business person can be assured of the same decision in the same sort of case. The argument most often used against the system is that it is undemocratic as it allows unelected legislators to make law, or that it preserves wrongly decided cases. Critics also sometimes accuse particular judges of applying the doctrine selectively, invoking it to support precedents which the judge supported anyway, but ignoring it in order to overturn precedents with which the judge disagreed.

The doctrine of stare decisis post some of the pros and cons below:

Flexible
It is sometimes said to be flexible. A judge is not so free where there is a binding precedent. Unless it can be distinguished he must follow it, even though he dislikes it or considers it bad law. His discretion is thereby limited and the alleged flexibility of case law becomes rigidity.

Avoids mistakes
It provides guidance based on the previous judges' experience. therefore, it prohibit the happening of wrong judgement by the judge itself if he was left to make the decision alone.

Greater certainty in the law
It can be considered as the most important advantage claimed for the doctrine of judicial precedent.

Causes injustice
The overruling of an earlier case may cause injustice to those who have ordered their affairs in reliance on it. Precedent may produce justice in the individual case but injustice in the generality of cases. It would be undesirable to treat a number of claimants unjustly simply because one binding case had laid down an unjust rule.

Limits development of the law
It is a limiting factor in the development of judge-made law. Practical law is founded on experience but the scope for further experience is restricted if the first case is binding.